Let’s face it, the dems don’t care about the commoners, the republicans are actually pure evil, everyone was happy when that shitstain CEO got shot.
Maybe we should build on this momentum we have to drive actual change at the political level.
my first act as president in 2029 would be to issue a full and unconditional pardon of the billionaire killer.
edit:
well alrighty then, followup question, does anyone want to join my newly formed political party? I’m going to start working on drafting our mission statement, or manifesto or whatever it should be called.
Further Edit: I set up a lemmy community for us to post shit about it. If you want to join, that’s our official, unofficial space. https://lemmy.world/c/newpoliticalparty
We need a new system. Not a new party to add to the shitty system.
No shit, but how are we going to do that? What would we need to do to effect that change?
Unfortunately, the only real path out of this at this point is violent revolution. We tried everything else. For decades. Pleaded with them to listen. They arrested and murdered us. Brainwashed the average person using sophisticated psychological conditioning. Captured every branch of government and agency.
Tell me another way. I am begging you. But I’ve been looking for years and I have hit a wall. We are out of time.
They chose this.
Third parties don’t and can’t work. The system is rigged for that. Better to start an anti-ceo PAC.
We should not. This idea of starting a new party to do something has been exhaustively understood for a long time. All it is capable of doing is hurting the major party your new party is closest to. Best explained here.
It is exciting to create something new you have total control over, and that excitement can help you get off the ground and feel like you’re going somewhere, but this is an illusion, an eventually that momentum slams into a wall as you realize you’ve only shifted de facto political reality in the United States in the opposite direction you wanted to (again: because all third parties can do is steal votes from their most closely aligned major party).
Bernie Sanders has had this figured out for a long time. He shits on the rich morning and night. He’s also a grownup and knows that his only viable course is to try to shift one of the major parties themselves. He thinks he has better odds with the Democrats, and he’s probably right, though maybe “less bad odds” is a better characterization.
Entering into a major party is not fun and exciting and you don’t have a lot of control and quick momentum. But it is the only way. Small progress, long game. A flash in the pan 3rd party will only burn you.
Yes.
Come and join us, friend. I’m calling it the shit-back movement.
It’ll take some work and we’ll have to outline so very extremely many stances.
Is .world really the place though?
Probably not, I had one of my shit posts removed the other day.
I gotta get off .world myself.
I don’t think we’re going to gain any traction until we override Citizens United and make bribing public officials illegal again. That would allow us to take back the legislative process and begin passing bills that the super rich are not going to like.
To everyone bringing up FPTP, other countries manage to not have it, it can be done, so stop fighting so hard against efforts to doing away with it.
Until we have a voting system where 3rd parties are viable (for example. Ranked Choice Voting, Star Voting, Approval Voting, etc.), we absolutely do not benefit in any way for the existence of more parties.
Whether intentional or not, America today is a two-party system by design. If you want more choices beyond the Democrats and Republicans, you need to help us enact voting system reforms which are necessary to allow 3rd parties to exist legitimately. We aren’t joking when we say that voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away; it very much is.
Wouldn’t it be better to join a party that already has shitting on the rich as part of its mission? I mean the two big parties don’t have that, but some of the small ones do AFAIK.
that’s the thing, i can’t think of any. the communist party of america is very much just full of tankies circle jerking about how ccp and north korea actually good, the green party is all about spoiling the dems and never actually do anything, the libertarians are fundamentally opposed to my political views. the only political party i can think of would be the bull moose party, but afaik they went extinct after teddy roosevelt.
Looks like some conservative astroturf organization co-opted the name in 2022…
sons of bitches. I wanted that name.
The progressive part is a thing I think.
AFAIK the Greens exclusively run for president because if they get 5% of the popular vote they can get federal funding. Whether that’s a good idea overall I have no idea, but there’s at least logic to their strategy.
No. Socialists of the past have never won any political victories by saying “rich bad,” the victory comes from presenting alternative solutions like public ownership and central planning. What you are describing is adventurism, not a genuine revolutionary movement.
I suggest you read my intro to Marxism list.
Shitting on the rich has most definitely worked in MANY situations.
Only when combined with actual practical plans in place beforehand.
Isn’t that what this is?
No. This platform is “rich bad.” It doesn’t present an alternative, it preserves existing systems that give rise to wealth disparity without tackling them and presenting an alternative.
Oops. I meant the community that OP started. It’s a place to hammer out those details on top of RICH BAD.
People have already hammered out those details, the most major arguments are on the basis of Anarchism or Marxism. OP didn’t invent anything, the answer lies in the past. PSL already exists, as does FRSO, what specifically is wrong with these where an entirely new party is necessary?
I mean the French revolution would like a word with you.
Also rich bad. It’s demonstrably true that rich people are completely disconnected from reality and will step on anyone to maintain their wealth.
It is not all of them, but it is most of them. History has always seen class warfare and this time is not different .
The French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution. It deposed the monarchy, but unlike what the Paris Commune tried to achieve, the Bourgeoisie became the new owners of the State. Proletarian Revolution needs organization and unity.
Fair.
What more powerful motivator than the common rich folk being subject to an entirely different life, government, justice system, etc?
Hopefully people wise up that class warfare never ended.
That is one useful motivator, that can be combined with Socialist and Communist theory of organization to actually successfully overthrow and replace the previous system.
I didn’t actually say socialism though, did I? I mean, I’m a socialist, but I think we have to just focus on shitting on the rich, because it’s easy and people will be able to join in.
I’m also not ruling out throwing actual shit at the rich.
If your only platform is uniting on hatred, and have no actual plans in place for improvement, you just become terrorists, rather than revolutionaries. Something being “easy” doesn’t mean it is effective. Lenin actually wrote about such a group, the Socialist Revolutionaries, in the article Revolutionary Adventurism. The SRs had taken to advocating assassination as it “transfers power from the elites to the masses” (something historically false) and declared that theory was bad, because it can get in the way of unity. Such directionless action ultimately doesn’t change anything.
Hating the Capitalists is well and good, but without a unified plan to replace them, the hate becomes the goal and nothing gets better. That’s why we can celebrate the death of this bozo while recognizing nothing will change because of it unless the workers get organized.
We need electoral reform that implements a system where more than two parties becomes viable. Imagine splitting left-leaning voters even more than they are now. It’s guaranteed wins for Republicans.
First Past the Post must be done away with and there should instead be a coalition of voters that refuse to support ANY candidate that doesn’t make it their primary campaign policy. Once that’s done, smaller parties will organically be created and incorporated into the system.
Support organizations listed here, specifically FairVote.
People think ranked choice is too confusing.
With voters like that, we’re so fucked.
Then do STAR, or approval. Those are simple. And I think even more likely to allow 3rd parties.
Pretty much anything is better than FPTP.
Personally, I think a 2 round system is the best bet.
Or a non-partisan blanket primary with top 2 going into a 1vs1 general election.
Both are similar, with the goal of eliminating the spoiler effect, and its easy to understand, since we are still choosing one name, but with 2 rounds of elections instead.
Those don’t eliminate the spoiler effect, but it does end up looking different. (Maybe has a different name in this form?)
My blue state has a blanket primary, and this last election I saw that demonstrated:
One race had two Republicans and like half a dozen Democrats and another half a dozen in other parties. The Republican vote of course was split between the two candidates. The Democrat vote was split like a hydra and we very nearly had (few hundred votes away) the two Republicans go to the general!
Fortunately, the top Dem barely squeaked into second place, and then easily won the general, but it was mighty close.
Yes, with a caveat.
Create a single-issue party for something like free healthcare, with your sole goal to be to drain votes from Democrats. Gain enough traction, and that party will welcome you into the fold with open arms, and will actually fucking listen to your issue as their primary platform.
Will they though? Biden was pitching a public option to compete with the other MFA candidates in 2020. He hasn’t uttered a single word about it since he was nominated.
This is essentially what happened with ukip and Brexit in the UK. It took a while for the movement to gain traction but it did eventually start to put pressure on the government at the time.
The only issue is if that you’ll no doubt need rich backers to gain influence… But that might be a bit of an issue if your entire platform is to shit on the same people who you need.
draining republican votes is the solution.
First past the post is what you’re tangling with.
It makes it so third parties only hurt their closest friend and lose to their least favorite party. Taking that energy into the democratic party itself is probably the best bet. Not good, but best.
In ranked choice, yes a new party would probably be best.
Yes because the Dems are basically suckups to the rich, just less fascist.
Depose party
Based on how the public reacted to a dead parasite there is clearly demand for the alternative to current clown regime.
The Adjuster’s hard work last week really highlighted that people are tired and ready for a change.
He has done more to galvanize the public than anyone during my life time.
It’s not going to amount to anything if he’s the only one taking action. If we’ve all just been waiting for things to get started then where is everyone now? I’ve seen tons of “I’ve got my pitchfork ready for when things get started” posts over the last few years but now that it’s supposedly here I only see the one pitchfork.
Obviously I’m not doing anything either but the question I’m getting at is, is it fair to say the public has been galvanized if it’s just one guy doing one thing while a bunch of people watch?
At least everyone can agree that we support him… So that’s a step in the right direction.
I am not sure what will come of it but shit posting in his support has to be rattling the owner class.
So there is sone benefit there too.
Bigger picture is that we need politicians to do something but they won’t
It seems they don’t care to do anything for iseven if we vote for them.
